Michael Stickles v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. FILED Nov 15 2017, 9:19 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Darren Bedwell Marion County Public Defender Agency Indianapolis, Indiana Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Lyubov Gore Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Michael Stickles, November 15, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A05-1703-CR-506 v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Angela Dow Davis, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G16-1611-F6-45066 Mathias, Judge. [1] Michael Stickles (“Stickles”) appeals from the trial court’s order approving a probation department memorandum concerning the assessment of probation Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1703-CR-506 | November 15, 2017 Page 1 of 4 fees. However, because the trial court has subsequently found Stickles indigent to all probation fees, we dismiss this appeal as moot. Facts and Procedural History [2] After a bench trial on February 9, 2017, Stickles was found guilty of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery. At the sentencing hearing immediately following the trial, Stickles was sentenced to 305 days of non-reporting probation. During the hearing, the following exchange took place: [Court]: I hope that you are successful. I’ll do no fines, no court costs. You’ve got enough issues. [Counsel]: Would the Court be willing to fin[d] Mr. Stickles indigent of the costs of probation? [Court]: Yes. Tr. p. 57. [3] Eight days later, the probation department sent the trial court a memorandum containing the following relevant information: Appellant’s App. p. 38. Four days after receiving the memorandum, the trial court issued a signed order that indicated: Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1703-CR-506 | November 15, 2017 Page 2 of 4 Id. at 39. [4] On June 14, 2017, the CCS specified that the trial court amended Stickles’s sentence by waiving a previously imposed $50 domestic violence prevention fee. On the same day, the trial court also found Stickles “Indigent as to Fines and Costs,” and specifically indicated “probation fees.” Stickles now appeals. Discussion and Decision [5] Stickles’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion when it authorized the probation department to impose fees after Stickles was found indigent to all fees during sentencing. [6] We initially note that the record does not reveal whether the probation department fees outlined in the memorandum and approved by the trial court were ever actually imposed. Stickles points out, “The record does not reflect that probation followed through and imposed the $250 user’s fee.” Appellant’s Br. at 7. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1703-CR-506 | November 15, 2017 Page 3 of 4 [7] Further, although not cited by either party,1 the trial court made a specific finding on June 14 that Stickles is indigent to all probation fees. Therefore, because the fees were never imposed, and the trial court has since made an explicit finding that Stickles is indigent to all probation fees, Stickles has received the relief he sought, and as such, his appeal is dismissed as moot. Jones v. State, 847 N.E.2d 190, 200 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied. Vaidik, C.J., and Crone, J., concur. 1 Indiana Evidence Rule 201(b)(5), as amended effective January 1, 2010, “permits courts to take judicial notice of ‘records of a court of this state[.]’” Horton v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1154, 1160 (Ind. 2016). Court records are presumptively sources of facts “that cannot reasonably be questioned” “in the absence of evidence tending to rebut that presumption.” Id. at 1161. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1703-CR-506 | November 15, 2017 Page 4 of 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
